4.8 Article

Masking of CD22 by cis ligands does not prevent redistribution of CD22 to sites of cell contact

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0400851101

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P01-HL57345, P01 HL057345] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIAID NIH HHS [R01 AI050143, AI050143] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIGMS NIH HHS [R01 GM060938, GM60938, GM25042] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CD22, a negative regulator of B cell signaling, is a member of the siglec family that binds to alpha2-6-linked sialic acids on glycoproteins. Previous reports demonstrated that binding of multivalent sialoside probes to CD22 is blocked, or masked, by endogenous (cis) ligands, unless they are first destroyed by sialidase treatment. These results suggest that cis ligands on B cells make CD22 functionally unavailable for binding to ligands in trans. Through immunofluorescence microscopy, however, we observed that CD22 on resting B cells redistributes to the site of contact with other B or T lymphocytes. Redistribution is mediated by interaction with trans ligands on the opposing cell because it does not occur with ligand-deficient lymphocytes from ST6Gall-null mice. Surprisingly, CD45, proposed as both a cis and trans ligand of CD22, was not required for redistribution to sites of cell contact, given that redistribution of CD22 was independent of CD45 and was observed with lymphocytes from CD45-deficient mice. Furthermore, CD45 is not required for CD22 masking as similar levels of masking were observed in the WT and null mice. Comparison of the widely used sialoside-polyacrylamide probe with a sialoside-streptavidin probe revealed that the latter bound a subset of B cells without sialidase treatment, suggesting that cis ligands differentially impacted the binding of these two probes in trans. The combined results suggest that equilibrium binding to cis ligands does not preclude binding of CD22 to ligands in trans, and allows for its redistribution to sites of contact between lymphocytes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据